W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > June 2011

[Bug 12935] <rt> should not auto-close ancestors

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:11:14 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QXDHu-000571-1m@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12935

--- Comment #26 from Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> 2011-06-16 14:11:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> > this still produces a surprising result:
> 
> See comment 9. You're missing other auto-closes. :)

I have an experimental build of Firefox that does the following:
 * rbc, rtc, rp, rb and rt all go to the list of elements that are closed by
"generate implied end tags".
 * If there is a ruby element in scope, rbc, rtc and rp start tags generate
implied end tags.
 * If there is a ruby element in scope, rb generates implied end tags except
for rbc.
 * If there is a ruby element in scope, rt generates implied end tags except
for rtc.

Parse errors not figured out yet.

The above seems to lead to sensible behavior. That is, Simple Ruby with tag
omission targeted for IE8 and earlier would still work. Yet, all of Complex
Ruby would be possible, too, all with optional end tags. Some Simple Ruby with
omitted end tags would fail to degrade gracefully in IE9, though, but I don't
have much sympathy for IE9 going and cloning old WebKit instead of implementing
the spec and giving spec feedback.

Opinions? Note that "generate implied end tags except for foo" where foo is a
single element name is a pre-existing tree builder pattern.

Technically, it would be possible to imply <ruby> when there isn't already a
ruby element in scope, but I'm hesitant to do that, because authors seem to
find it surprising that you can omit <html>, <head>, <body> and <tbody>.

> > why would you write ...
> 
> Brain dump on ruby markup: http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/weblog/2011/ruby/

Thank you.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 14:11:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:52 UTC